Should Germany become a military superpower again?

[John Sansom]

There's a very energetic economic shake-up currently underway throughout the globe and even purely academic discussions of super-power potential should probably be shelved until a clearer picture emerges of who has the cash and other relative capacities.

I kinda think that the day of the super power has been placed in abeyance for now....although the EU might qualify if the member nations cement their relations under some form of accepted single direction. Although "in pain" as it were, Russia and the USA are a long way from being out of the running--that is, if they are willing to pay the price.

As the Greeks, the Maedonians, the Romans, the Kashaan, the Brits, the French, the Russians, and the Americans all found out, being a super power makes one a super target...which leads to super responses, super costs, and super declines and falls.

Best to stay in the middle range with a highly efficient military and a super diplomatic corps.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

There's a very energetic economic shake-up currently underway throughout the globe and even purely academic discussions of super-power potential should probably be shelved until a clearer picture emerges of who has the cash and other relative capacities.

I kinda think that the day of the super power has been placed in abeyance for now....although the EU might qualify if the member nations cement their relations under some form of accepted single direction. Although "in pain" as it were, Russia and the USA are a long way from being out of the running--that is, if they are willing to pay the price.

As the Greeks, the Maedonians, the Romans, the Kashaan, the Brits, the French, the Russians, and the Americans all found out, being a super power makes one a super target...which leads to super responses, super costs, and super declines and falls.

Best to stay in the middle range with a highly efficient military and a super diplomatic corps.

So what are you saying the U.S. is not a superpower anymore?

 

[John Sansom]

What I'm saying is that the USA is so hugely in debt that its military spending capacities might not be able to sustain a "super power" need to always remain several steps ahead of potential competitors. I'm not saying the US can't meet the challenge, but the cost in social and economic cohesion might be more than many of its citizens would be willing to pay--most especially in times when jobs are disappearing and foreclosures are taking the lead in the real estate field.

Of course, the argument can be made that military spending can become an even more important factor in the employment equation. That's true, providing this type of spending is not out-sourced to the benefit of other countries. But competitive bidders and sharp-pencilled bureaucrats are more than likely to reinforce the out-sourcing mind set, especially in these economically parlous times.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

What I'm saying is that the USA is so hugely in debt that its military spending capacities might not be able to sustain a "super power" need to always remain several steps ahead of potential competitors. I'm not saying the US can't meet the challenge, but the cost in social and economic cohesion might be more than many of its citizens would be willing to pay--most especially in times when jobs are disappearing and foreclosures are taking the lead in the real estate field.

Of course, the argument can be made that military spending can become an even more important factor in the employment equation. That's true, providing this type of spending is not out-sourced to the benefit of other countries. But competitive bidders and sharp-pencilled bureaucrats are more than likely to reinforce the out-sourcing mind set, especially in these economically parlous times.

Well I'm no expert on economics so I can only make a half ass debate on that issue but this is not the first time the U.S. has had a recession, like during the 1970s the U.S. was in a deep economic crises it was still able to compete with the USSR but it did not have the debt like it does no at the time.

 

[Feanor]

Guys lets bring this back on topic.

 

[Luis-Cuba]

Germany , France and Britain will never create an army togther. All of these countries have so many diffrences they will never combine their individual strengths under one banner. And Germany by itself does not have the capabilty to become a superpower again. They might have all the technology nessesary. But that is not enough. They dont have a large blue water navy that is essentail for power projection. They dont have an airforce that can strike anywhere in the globe. Nor do they have anyway to fight a full scale nuclear war against the two military powers of the world wich is usa and russia. I just dont see germany getting any farther then mabe the strongest country in eastern europe.

 

[kato]

Nor do they have anyway to fight a full scale nuclear war against the two military powers of the world wich is usa and russia

If we're talking MAD - all that takes is enough nukes to permanently cripple the opponent. 100 strategically placed nukes for the US, 150 for Russia. With second-strike capability, which both France and the UK have.

 

[John Sansom]

Wilco, Feanor. Your point is well taken. However, I do believe that a country must have a healthy economy to assume super power status. Right now, everybody seems to be suffereing the empty-pocket syndrome to a greater or lesser extent.

 

[Luis-Cuba]

If we're talking MAD - all that takes is enough nukes to permanently cripple the opponent. 100 strategically placed nukes for the US, 150 for Russia. With second-strike capability, which both France and the UK have.

Thats precisley what im talking about. France and Uk may have a second strike capability but im talking about only germany.

 

[Feanor]

If we're talking MAD - all that takes is enough nukes to permanently cripple the opponent. 100 strategically placed nukes for the US, 150 for Russia. With second-strike capability, which both France and the UK have.

With BMD evolution for Russia and the US, this will and is changing. There is an active BMD around Moscow, and the S-400 can do limited BMD. The GBIs in Alaska and California are coming online. Iirc the SM-2 can do BMD roles, as can Patriot variants (though on a more limited scale). Both of those increase the numbers necessary. Keep in mind it also take more then one warhead to reliably strike a target the size of a city. The amount of nukes that Germany would need to have crippling effect on the opponent is rising. The amount of nukes needed for a credible deterrent, however, is notably smaller. The question is whether Germany would be able to develop the nuclear missile technology? I think that political reasons would make it unfeasible.

 

[kato]

The question is whether Germany would be able to develop the nuclear missile technology? I think that political reasons would make it unfeasible.

At least technologically, not much of a problem.
Germany is considered among the "borderline" nuclear powers, i.e. among those who could conceivably develop a rudimentary nuclear capability (IOC of a few nukes ala North Korea) within 6 months at any time. Germany currently keeps a level of about 20% of the weapon-capable plutonium stocks of the USA (40% of Russia), has one of the largest uranium enrichment facilities in Europe, and if necessary could mine uranium from its own soil (as was done until the mid 90s).
Delivery systems exist for such rudimentary systems already, at least in the form of cruise missiles and gravity bomb delivery systems; considering some deals in the past, sub-launched nuclear cruise missiles wouldn't be much of a problem either. Developing ICBM capability would probably take around 5-6 years to IOC without outside help, using pre-existing data from the German subsidiaries of EADS Astrium. Less with e.g. French help.

The quote with the 100/150 nukes is from the UN 1982 Nuclear Weapons report, which took preexisting BMD systems (on both sides) into account. And obviously "cripple" isn't "take out the opponent's second-strike capability completely". It means targeting the major nodes - for the US: a dozen command bases, certain airfields, several dozen penetrating nukes on the major ICBM silo bases, a few for certain ports, Washington of course. And of course this all would presume BMD capability for your own territory.

 

[Feanor]

What I mean is the German governments willingness to forgo the international problems associated with nuclear weapons development, as well as willingness to commit additional funds necessary to produce this.

 

[Durendal]

What I mean is the German governments willingness to forgo the international problems associated with nuclear weapons development, as well as willingness to commit additional funds necessary to produce this.

Germany doesn't want nukes , it could make nukes.
But what purpose would they have?
Germany doesn't want another war.
It would get it's ass kicked worse then it had in WW2.

 

[Durendal]

Germany on the march on the red square in Moscow
Just for those history buffs.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0IYnRQJas0"]YouTube - „Preußens Gloria" auf dem Roten Platz in Moskau[/ame]

They tried and tried and finally they made it ! :nutkick

 

[yasin_khan]

I think Germany is super power in european arsenal but it dosnt have global reach so its impossible to compare it with USA.

 

[nevidimka]

Germany on the march on the red square in Moscow
Just for those history buffs.

YouTube - „Preußens Gloria" auf dem Roten Platz in Moskau

They tried and tried and finally they made it ! :nutkick

Good Joke. Anyways, what was the occasion?

I think Hitler would have preffered some goose step and that eagle sitting on a globe..

 

[freckled]

The occasion was a russian festival on the red square called kremlin zoria.

 

[nevidimka]

Is it starting to happen?
A somewhat German-France Union. A union of convenience in some form to become a bigger power and stature in the world.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/500_German_troops_to_be_deployed_in_France_999.html

 

[kato]

Nah, that deal is mostly about France trying to reduce defence spending. By renting out barracks to Germany, and ordering the only full french regiment of the brigade stationed in Germany back to French barracks.

D/F Brigade has seen 1000-1500 French troops stationed in South Germany since 1995, with a few dozen German troops also in France.

Can be seen in the same vein as France offering Germany 30 ASMP missiles and nukes to be stationed in Germany under NATO nuclear sharing. Germany didn't take them, now the same amount of nukes and missiles and base they're stationed at are gonna be struck from the ToE.

Germany took the same mainly financially-driven route as France 5 years ago, when they ordered back 90% of the once 2500+ troops stationed in the Netherlands (with only the joint NATO I. GE/NL Corps command remaining there).

 

[British Post]

But that wasn't the question, mate. Question was; should Germany become a military power again...